NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And what you are saying does not fit the rule even as I referenced. I might think that I have a million dollars coming to me for Christmas and that does not make it so because I believe something. There has to be something in place to make that happen. Just like the rules of the game that are in place that clearly says he has to come to the ground (lunge and all) and maintain control of the ball. The play is not over just because he has the ball with two knees on the ground and might at that moment have the ball in his hand. He has to maintain that control through the ground, as stated by Polian and the rules referenced in the video.

Peace

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

That is your opinion. I do not think there is much wrong with the rule as many of those that have to actually enforce the rules. When this was reviewed this past offseason, nothing changed. I bet that is the case because they had to deal with all the possibilities out there in the rule and realized how easy the application of this current rule is in place.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

He did not say anything about the ball coming loose. He said that he must survive the ground before you can even talk about possession. You obviously did not pay attention to the actual words he said. He even showed another play and said how that was different than the Jessie James play.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

I can tell that you did not pay attention to the video, because not only did one of his partners say that players understand what the rule is, they complain because they do not like the rule. Not liking the rule is not a justification for a change. There are a lot of rules that people do not like, but those rules never change and likely hardly ever will for some time.

And if you have not noticed, not very many people are having this discussion with you for a reason. I do not mind because these things interest me. But it is clear that most officials could give a damn about changing the rule here and as expected a fan like yourself that does not officiate has no idea how these things will influence how you call games. Until your butt is on the line, it is really easy to tell others what they should do or how things are changing.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

I watched and comprehended the whole thing. It's still incredibly subjective.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I can tell that you did not pay attention to the video, because not only did one of his partners say that players understand what the rule is,

If that were uniformly true, that player would not have touched the ball to the ground, thinking he had scored a touchdown. When he reached the ball over the goal plane, he had to know that move would end with the ball on the ground.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

I saw it once, saw the ball move, and knew it was coming back incomplete.

What's lacking is your understanding of the NFL application of the definition of a catch.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

I saw it once, saw the ball move, and knew it was coming back incomplete.

What's lacking is your understanding of the NFL application of the definition of a catch.

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

It doesn't need improving. It's exactly what it should be.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

If you say so.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you say so.

Peace

I've made suggestions or offered up solutions that others have stated. I clearly understand how the rule is written. I just think it could be better. I've shown pretty clearly that it's not as simple as Polian says. I wouldn't say that anything I've offered up necessarily makes it more simple, but I think what I've offered up makes more sense without overcomplicating matters.

And if makes you feel any better, Mike Periera is saying the same thing I am:

Now that another touchdown has been taken away with out clear and obvious evidence, it is time to move on to the catch rule. It doesn't work. I doesn't make sense. Start with the Jessie James play. That should be a catch and a touchdown not an incomplete pass. (more)
Make it like a catch on an upright receiver. If you get control and two feet or another today body part on the ground and then reach or lunch, you have made a football move, they it should be a catch. Replay can only review the control and two feet. Not the FB move. Credit PFT.

By the way, my reference to PFT was Mike Florio's suggestion that the subjective element of time or football move not be reviewable. I agree.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I've made suggestions or offered up solutions that others have stated. I clearly understand how the rule is written. I just think it could be better. I've shown pretty clearly that it's not as simple as Polian says. I wouldn't say that anything I've offered up necessarily makes it more simple, but I think what I've offered up makes more sense without overcomplicating matters.

And if makes you feel any better, Mike Periera is saying the same thing I am:

You are having this conversation in a place where no one here is going to make any such change. I do not think you understand the rule because you keep talking about the rule and the application as if they are the same thing. As stated by Polian, they officiate these plays in HDTV. They do not rule these plays in live time or without looking at these plays in slow motion. Yes the officials on the field will do what they see to the best of their ability, but they do not make the final decision if instant replay comes into play. So again, this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are having this conversation in a place where no one here is going to make any such change. I do not think you understand the rule because you keep talking about the rule and the application as if they are the same thing. As stated by Polian, they officiate these plays in HDTV. They do not rule these plays in live time or without looking at these plays in slow motion. Yes the officials on the field will do what they see to the best of their ability, but they do not make the final decision if instant replay comes into play. So again, this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time.

Peace

What Pereira said takes what I was getting at and states it more clearly. The situation can be helped by limiting what replay is allowed to review. In the case of the James play, once replay sees he had control of the ball with a knee down at the the time the ball broke the plane, play over. What happens after doesn't matter.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time. Peace

Funny, how a conversation becomes "silly", when one stated opinion is unable to persuade differing opinions that their conclusions make sense, or are worth further consideration. Of course, it is a lot easier to simply declare being correct, than convince those who logically and reasonably disagree with your explanation, or have any idea what "most people" think about anything.

On a related note, when and who, determined that the slightest movement of a ball in player possession AUTOMATICALLY confirmed that possession was somehow "lost". There seems to be endless situations where "movement of the ball" has absolutely nothing to do with a player losing firm possession and maintaining absolute control of that ball.